• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Is autism the next human evolution?

Nobody is arguing that it is not genetic. It clearly is. Twins have the same genes, they are both very likely to be autistic. That does not mean that their children will be autistic.
 
Am I missing something here? I read this as twins being included but statistically being quite a small proportion of the overall sample.

The study included 37 570 twin pairs, 2 642 064 full sibling pairs, and 432 281 maternal and 445 531 paternal half-sibling pairs. Of these, 14 516 children were diagnosed with ASD. The model including additive and nonadditive genetic, shared and nonshared environmental parameters was chosen as the full model under which nested submodels were tested. The best-fitting model included only additive genetic and nonshared environmental parameters (Table). Using this model, the ASD heritability was estimated as 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79-0.87)
Click to expand...
 
I agree that autism has been around for as long as humans have been alive. Furthermore, I'd describe it as a regressive trait, not an 'evolution'.

Humanity's success is tied to being able to live in cities - huge groups of unrelated people working together in close confines. The selective pressure is for the super-social, not those who get totally stressed out around other people. Dogs and cats have been under the same evolutionary pressure, becoming docile and social over time.

I'd say autistics are more likely to resemble the pre-social human brain.
 
this subject is likely gonna cause problems. anyway, if it was an evolutionary measure, then its clearly not a good one, as it is loaded with many, many, many, issues that will be nothing but a huge burden in their lives, with little to no useful benefit that non autistic people can easily replicate.
 
Autistamatic said:
Am I missing something here? I read this as twins being included but statistically being quite a small proportion of the overall sample.
Click to expand...

Yes. They are not saying that the parents were 87% autistic. What they are saying is that is the chance that autism is related to the genetic material as opposed to environmental factors is extremely high.

They are not saying because autism is inherited that it was inherited from an autistic person.
 
Autistamatic said:
The "that's not how evolution works" argument has been done so I won't cover that ground. We are slaves to our genes, whoever we are. Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" really should be required reading in schools. He may be a bit of an outspoken twonk with controversial opinions on politics and religion these days, but he's written some excellent books.
Human evolution has been slowed to a virtual halt, at least temporarily, thanks to medicine which is ever improving. The autistic population is likely to increase by proportion because more of us get a chance to reproduce and pass our genes on to the next generation. As neurodiversity inevitably becomes an accepted reality rather than a fringe concept that will only increase.
We will never be in the majority though. The challenge for those of us who believe in a neurally diverse future is to not only understand within ourselves how much we need allistics, but in helping allistics understand how much they need us in their world.
Click to expand...

"Because ASD is rare, estimates of heritability rely on few families with more than 1 affected child, and, coupled with the time trends in ASD prevalence, the heritability estimates are sensitive to the choice of methods. The method initially chosen in the previous study led to a lower estimate of heritability of ASD." (Form the abstract)

The study is simply not asking the question, "do autistic people have autistic children". It accepts the statistical fact that very few members of any family are autistic. The study is trying to do the difficult task of determining whether or not it is genetic as opposed to environmental. Difficult because it is not a clear pass down dominant v. recessive like, let's say, hair colour.

Autism is a cascade of interacting genes which need to fire in unison for the condition to be realized. This is why it is free from selective pressures.
 
HidinginPlainSight said:
"Because ASD is rare, estimates of heritability rely on few families with more than 1 affected child, and, coupled with the time trends in ASD prevalence, the heritability estimates are sensitive to the choice of methods. The method initially chosen in the previous study led to a lower estimate of heritability of ASD." (Form the abstract)

The study is simply not asking the question, "do autistic people have autistic children". It accepts the statistical fact that very few members of any family are autistic. The study is trying to do the difficult task of determining whether or not it is genetic as opposed to environmental. Difficult because it is not a clear pass down dominant v. recessive like, let's say, hair colour.

Autism is a cascade of interacting genes which need to fire in unison for the condition to be realized. This is why it is free from selective pressures.
Click to expand...

It seems we were both wrong. According to several other sources such as the one below neither of our interpretations above are correct. It's the 0.83 that is the significant figure. 95% is their statement of certainty it seems. The heritability quoted in that most recent study is 83%.

Autism Heritability Estimate Updated in New Analysis of 2014 Swedish Study
 
Raisedbywolves said:
No. Mutations never produce a stronger creature.
Click to expand...
I disagree because pure breeds in animals tend to be more prone to health problems than a non-pure bred.

I believe in autism just being another brain "operating system" so it is something that has happened to exist alongside the allistic "operating system". We're only becoming more aware of autism now because of advances in understanding in human behaviour, etc. That doesn't make it an evolution at all.

For some reason this logic is reminding me of the poor use of the word "evolving" in the Pokémon franchise. Seriously, Pokémon do not evolve, they do metamorphosis.
 
Last edited:
IMO, the people who're truly on the spectrum are being short-changed by the over diagnosis of Autism, HFA & Aspergers. Both my son and I are on the spectrum, me more than him. I know it when I see it and I also know when a person has been wrongly diagnosed. Usually, the misdiagnosed people have been enabled to be jerks from bad parenting. The misdiagnosis of Autism is like a free pass to continue to be jerks and I've seen this in both children and adults. And so, the more misdiagnosis occurs, the lines of what true Autism is, are blurred. Thus, morphing Autism into something different than what it is / was.
 
About a decade ago a prominent radio host in the US, Michael Savage, went on a rant on air about how autistic people are just jerks whose parents paid a psychologist to put a label on being a jerk so they could get a free pass in life, and how autistics are just spoiled brats who need a few good spankings. The audio went viral and a lot of people were angry, but then there were people who totally agreed with Savage. I know I'm not the only one here who had a childhood full of adults telling me what an arrogant bunghole I was and how I needed to be put in my place. My dad could never figure out why the beatings never had the desired effect. Even when I was well into my 30s my dad would yell at me for being "lazy".
 
Raisedbywolves said:
No. Mutations never produce a stronger creature.
Click to expand...
Are you sure? In biology class, I learned that a mutation is either beneficial, neutral, deleterious (makes organism's life more difficult), or lethal.

However, the mutations that result in Autism are neutral due to Autism being a spectrum.
 
Crossbreed said:
I cannot accept base autism* as being the product of genetic mutation anymore than sinistrality is.

*Autism without complications.
Click to expand...
Here is what a quote from this Wikipedia article on the heritability of autism.
Autism has a strong genetic basis, although the genetics of autism is complex and it is unclear whether autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is explained more by multi-gene interactions or by rare mutations with major effects.
Click to expand...
So, yes, yes it does. Also, it can be caused by drugs used by the mother during pregnancy. These drugs can either be legal or illegal drugs, too.
 
Joshua Aaron said:
Here is what a quote from this Wikipedia article on the heritability of autism.

So, yes, yes it does. Also, it can be caused by drugs used by the mother during pregnancy. These drugs can either be legal or illegal drugs, too.
Click to expand...

That sentence from Wikipedia doesn't actually say anything definitive, so I'd be wary of drawing conclusions just from that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom